The British did that in many countries, without having en masse movement of their citizens. Then those countries decided to become independent and self ruled which turned them right back into the cess pools they originally were.

People here in the Ozarks (and throughout Missouri) are nervous, armed, and vigilant. There have been mass purchases of prepaid phones in the area by reportedly "middle eastern" men, coupled with dozens of propane tanks stolen from people's yards. People are thinking IED, and they're edgy.

The Ozarks is the home of 2 major Christian universities, plus Fort Leonard Wood, a huge training base. We also have a handful of large dams. And then there's Branson, the ultimate soft target in the heartland.

The general consensus is: lock and load. A rifle behind every blade of grass indeed (plus a handgun, a shotgun, and granny's kitchen sink). Don't f*ck with the hillbillies.

Who knows if this is credible. I can't imagine Muslim men eating at a pork-saturated Golden Coral. But then there's that large stash of explosives found buried in the woods by a hunter. The sheriff's dept said they had no idea who it belonged to or why it was out there, but they were certain it wasn't terrorists. To which the general population glared and kept cleaning their guns.

When we renewed our CWPs Tuesday, there were lots of first time people applying. A detective came out and spoke to a man in line he knew, told him it's a good idea. And this is in libville Olympia.

When I was shopping at Fred Meyer the other day I saw a woman in a burka - not hijab - but complete burka, only eye slits and the man with her was also wearing floor-length robe, head scarf and kaffiyeh. I've often seen people with head scarves or hijab but this was a first. It was also creepy as they just seemed to wander aimlessly, picking things up and putting them back. I just wanted to get out of there which made me feel conflicted about the whole situation.

Trying again, since my last remark vanished. I amused by Trump's remarks about blocking all Muslims from immigration, which he knows as well as I do is unconstitutional. And cannot happen. I suggest he was trying cutely to force others to be more specific on their own immigration filtration plans as to which, from where, and what connections. We need leaders to be specific and not lean on some amorphous bias many might otherwise have in their hearts. I live among Muslims and those around me are NOT the problem, but there ARE problems out there, and some may try to infiltrate even my community. So we are all watchful...we have no choice. MY community is Shia' and the latest trouble comes from Sunni terrorists...who'd not fit in here. Otherwise we, my community, would become a target of those who'd just despise all Muslims per se. We don't deserve that...this community has been extant for over 100 years thanks to Henry Ford & his factories. So we too must look for the miscreants who might try to infiltrate...and it is those who I believe Trump was talking about. We'll soon see. Those who seek to lead need to be specific in their plans. I await that day.

Ari, I'm sorry, but blocking "any person or class of persons from entering" the US is law, as passed in 1952. There is nothing in the Constitution about immigration, other than Congress will control it. And they did, giving power to the president to prevent anyone or group, by proclamation, from entering.

Trump is not talking about muslims already legally in the US, and certainly not about citizens, but about a TEMPORARY halt to immigration until the government gets it under control.

Of course, if you listen to the media, and lefty politicos, they tell their best lies in order to tar Trump with any brush they can in their rapidly diminishing arsenal of lies.

I listen to NPR in my car during my morning and evening drives, and they are wailing and gnashing teeth at the inability of Dems & RINO's to make a dent in Trump, so far.

They went to Dearborn today and got quotes from Arab-Americans who seem to think Trump is about to throw them out of the country, and the NPR "reporter" did absolutely nothing to correct them, but in fact said things to make the more afraid.

The media bleats on about how Trump is dividing us all based on race, creed, etc, when it is THEIR lies about what he's said that is causing the division.

You are so right, DWT. I've felt for the last 20 years or so that the media are the traitors in our midst, they lie, mislead, smear and certainly don't keep the public unformed in an unbiased way. They don't "vet" the lefty candidates, they make excuses for them (think Candy Crowley in the Romney-Obama CNN debate in 2012). I think they should be put in public stocks and humiliated. I hold them entirely responsible for the horrible excuse of a CiC sitting in the White House.

DWT...I'd suggest that any "class" for immigration purposes would be defeated on Constitutional grounds immediately if it tried to include a religion. I did say I was "amused" by Trump's proclamation because I believe he did it to provoke reasonable responses...which he has not gotten from other candidates or pundits. Everyone says what he can't do not what THEY would do. In short, the provocation failed.

Finally, how would the government determine who is Muslim? Well over half the Muslim population of the world is not Arab or even middle eastern. Yet NPR comes to Dearborn, my home town, to talk to Arabs? I'd bet they had to vet several interviews to find a couple that fit their narrative. Amusing in its own right. Beyond all that, anyone seeking entry to the USA would just say they're anything but Muslim...just like the silly questions for the K1 Visa.

A better response to Trump, which I think he was seeking, would be a temporary ban on immigrants from certain locales, or even all locales, until we get our immigration vetting process in order....one that would actually identify potential threats by investigation not just the immigrant's say so like the questions for a K1 Visa.

DWT...it is obvious from your remark that you read or heard BOTH of Trump's proclamations on the subject, not the just the first one....which is all the media is willing to talk about. In his second remarks he clarified and qualified what he meant...as your comment reflects. You've got the media right...they "report" only what fits "their" narrative(s).

Yes, the questions for the K1 Visas are dumb. Immigration attorneys have sites online listing the questions and how to answer them.

Aridog is right, you can't determine who is Muslim. I don't think "profiling" is the right term but I understand a little bit about the Israeli system for screening people and I thing we would do well to follow their lead. It would mean hiring people who are actually interested and competent in that line of work instead of hiring slackers who know they will never be fired once they score a government job. It's so effing frustrating to see what our federal government has become, the waste, the employees who don't give a damn, the abuse.

Ari - Vohlok (I think) and Posner both believe the "plenary power" of the Congress to regulate immigration would allow Muslims to be barred from immigration.

In fact plenary power would allow Congress to bar people born on a Tuesday to be barred. It doesn't matter. Congress can do what it likes; prospective immigrants have no rights in the matter.

Laurence Tribe and some others think barring Muslims would be unconstitutional.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar; I have no opinion. But there is an easy circumvention. Just draw up a list of countries, with just by coincidence happen to be majority Muslim, and ban immigration from them - allowing exceptions for persecuted religious minorities (e.g. Christians or Jews), as current law does.

lewy, I was so surprised when I heard that recently. Of course, I was not paying attention to politics whatsoever back then.Prof. Dershowitz, a man whose opinion I respect, said Trump's plan is "probably not" constitutional. He pointed out that the Supremes upheld immigration restrictions based on nationality but not religion.

Just draw up a list of countries, with just by coincidence happen to be majority Muslim, and ban immigration from them - allowing exceptions for persecuted religious minorities (e.g. Christians or Jews), as current law does.

And THAT is the only way it can, and does work, and can with stand a court challenge. I rather doubt a migration plenary diktat could specify "no blacks" either....and succeed in court.

What technically "can be done" isn't tested until it is tried...in this case religion or race would be the stopper. National origin works, however, even if the locale "happens" to be all on one or the other or both.

What stuns me the most is the fact that our background checkers have NOT been allowed to check social media...allegedly by Presidential diktat. WTF? Really. You publish it, it ain't private Dude...sorry about that. Is our President THAT obtuse? Even purportedly "private" Face-Book stuff is using a public media stream...e.g., it ain't "private" either Dude.

I've said elsewhere on another thread that when I worked in DOD we checked every single source on background, including emails. WTF happened? Obama happened I guess. Hope we fix it soon....could have prevented San Bernadino, at least in part, if the wench had been social media checked and prevented from entry.

Putting on my tinfoil hat now...I believe that every word I write on the Internet, anywhere, is public domain and can be used for me or against me. Same for email, regardless of what is claimed...it can be accessed. I'll take whatever comes of it because I'm not pretending one idea and believing another.

Only exceptions might be when you see a " :-)) " after a comment. Maybe.

At the moment I am without dogs, previously all GSD's. It hurts, but try as I might I can't think of any other breed I adore so much...even when Judi says we need a "smaller" dog...I'd resent the poor small dog for not being the dog I adore. How weird is that? That tinfoil hated GSD is still a GSD and I can't help but love him/her...sooner or later I'll have more GSD's...bet on it. That face says it all, even with the tinfoil, they are very prescient and understanding and I can't help but miss their company.

I didn't want to photoshop a tinfoil hat on Ari as I was afraid it might be disrespectful. My Chaz has been gone for 19 months now but I still expect to see him running to me when I'm in the garden or elsewhere. Just for an instant. I guess it never changes, he would have been 15 last Monday.

Aridog, I really hope you get another dog, a GSP or smaller. Tom never thought he'd like the smaller dogs, he always had golden retrievers. But after I got the first cavalier (Chaz), he was crazy about them.